Ben Finney wrote:
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
And considering this, and the fact that Google's archive is now the
main Usenet archive, message id's are not that useful, really.
You've demonstrated only that Google is an unreliable Usenet archive.
One doesn't even need to use Usenet, in this
W. eWatson wrote:
>>> now = datetime.datetime.now()
>>> fractional_hour = now.hour + now.minute / 60.0
See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from yours.
If timezones might be a problem area, than it might be worth while to
see it in the context of the actual applic
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * Steve Holden:
>> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>>> * W. eWatson:
Ben Finney wrote:
> "W. eWatson" writes:
>
>> See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
>> yours.
> This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messag
"W. eWatson" writes:
> See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
> yours.
This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messages” that is
common for all readers.
Could you give the Message-ID for that message?
--
\ “As we enjoy great advantages from the
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* W. eWatson:
Ben Finney wrote:
"W. eWatson" writes:
See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
yours.
This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messages” that is
common for all readers.
Could you give the Messag
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
>
>> And considering this, and the fact that Google's archive is now the
>> main Usenet archive, message id's are not that useful, really.
>
> You've demonstrated only that Google is an unreliable Usenet archive.
>
>
"Alf P. Steinbach" writes:
> And considering this, and the fact that Google's archive is now the
> main Usenet archive, message id's are not that useful, really.
You've demonstrated only that Google is an unreliable Usenet archive.
One doesn't even need to use Usenet, in this case, since
comp.l
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> * W. eWatson:
>> Ben Finney wrote:
>>> "W. eWatson" writes:
>>>
See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
yours.
>>>
>>> This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messages” that is
>>> common for all readers.
>>>
>>> Could y
* W. eWatson:
Ben Finney wrote:
"W. eWatson" writes:
See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
yours.
This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messages” that is
common for all readers.
Could you give the Message-ID for that message?
Sort of like oute
"W. eWatson" writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > Could you give the Message-ID for that message?
> >
> Sort of like outer space I guess. No real direction. How would I find
> the message ID?
It is a field in the header of every message. Show the full header, and
look for the field named ‘Message-ID’
Ben Finney wrote:
"W. eWatson" writes:
See my post about the datetime controversy about 3-4 posts up from
yours.
This forum is distributed, and there's no “up” or “3-4 messages” that is
common for all readers.
Could you give the Message-ID for that message?
Sort of like outer space I guess
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
W. eWatson wrote:
Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
Here's one way.
dt=datetime.datetime.now()
xtup = dt.timetuple()
h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
W. eWatson wrote:
Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
Here's one way.
dt=datetime.datetime.now()
xtup = dt.timetuple()
h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600
Austyn wrote:
Here's an improvement in case you want your code to work outside of
Arizona:
from time import time, timezone
h = ((time() - timezone) / 3600) % 24
On Jan 10, 9:04 pm, Austyn wrote:
How about:
import time
arizona_utc_offset = -7.00
h = (time.time() / 3600 + arizona_utc_offset) %
Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
W. eWatson wrote:
Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
Here's one way.
dt=datetime.datetime.now()
xtup = dt.timetuple()
h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600.00+xtup[6]/10**6
# now i
W. eWatson wrote:
Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
Here's one way.
dt=datetime.datetime.now()
xtup = dt.timetuple()
h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600.00+xtup[6]/10**6
# now is in fractions of an hour
W. eWatson wrote:
> Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
> result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
>
> Here's one way.
>
> dt=datetime.datetime.now()
> xtup = dt.timetuple()
> h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600.00+xtup[6]/10**6
> # now is in fracti
Here's an improvement in case you want your code to work outside of
Arizona:
from time import time, timezone
h = ((time() - timezone) / 3600) % 24
On Jan 10, 9:04 pm, Austyn wrote:
> How about:
>
> import time
> arizona_utc_offset = -7.00
> h = (time.time() / 3600 + arizona_utc_offset) % 24
>
>
How about:
import time
arizona_utc_offset = -7.00
h = (time.time() / 3600 + arizona_utc_offset) % 24
dt.timetuple()[6] is the day of the week; struct tm_time doesn't
include a sub-second field.
On Jan 10, 10:28 am, "W. eWatson" wrote:
> Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to exp
Maybe there's a more elegant way to do this. I want to express the
result of datetime.datetime.now() in fractional hours.
Here's one way.
dt=datetime.datetime.now()
xtup = dt.timetuple()
h = xtup[3]+xtup[4]/60.0+xtup[5]/3600.00+xtup[6]/10**6
# now is in fractions of an hour
--
http://mail.pyth
20 matches
Mail list logo
